Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Mat:
If one reads the 19 September 2006 "Report of Actions on IEEE 802.20",
there were a number of factors that motivated the SASB actions. The
preliminary investigation summary was: "Several consistent themes
emerged: the working group had become highly contentious (significantly
beyond what is normally experienced in the IEEE-SA); appeared to lack
transparency; and showed evidence of possible dominance and other
potential irregularities." Actions were not just based on efforts to
dominate the WG.
That letter did charge the non-conflicted members of the EC "to identify
and address any efforts to dominate the IEEE 802.20 Working Group,
whether by affirmatively seeking to achieve a standard through
domination or by deliberately blocking the development of a standard",
but the stated objective for actions was "the IEEE-SA goal of
high-quality standards achieved through a fair and open process."
So, as a conflicted observer, I don't find it necessary or appropriate
to determine that the WG is no longer dominated. I do not see how the
EC could make a determination that there was no dominance anyway. As
Mark summarized, 802.20 has been voting through a "unit" designed voter.
An important part of the data the SASB analyzed before taking action
(including direction to the EC) was to analyze voting patterns. With
the 802.20 WG voting method, the data simply aren't there to analyze to
the same level of detail as was done in 2006.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J.
(US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:01 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
All,
Again, I can't vote on this (conflicted) but the issue isn't voting
rules, but dominance. 802.20 was effectively said to be dominated by
some set of parties. The point of the special voting rules was to
reduce the impact of this dominance. I would argue that the methods
applied may or may not be within our rules, and could be viewed as a
form of entity voting. But regardless, those rules can only be applied
if there is dominance.
My view is that we should make a determination that 802.20 is no longer
considered dominated or something along those line, or that the original
determination of dominance only applied till the first approved
standard. Given we are past that point, a new determination of
dominance by the current WG chair (or some higher organization) would be
required to apply the current voting rules. So, I'm not sure what to do
here, but you may want to consider a motion addressing dominance as well
as voting rules.
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:46 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
Mark -
Thanks for the clarification.
I just unearthed the wording of the UC-EC motion of 16th July 07:
"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20 working
group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with
one vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall be as determined
by the 802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of
their primary affiliation and other information available to the OC."
That being the case, and noting that we need to get rid of all of the
requirements of this motion, including the requirement for the OC to
make determinations of affiliation, I suspect that what is needed to
unpick all of this is a motion of the following form:
"Moved to rescind the UC-EC motion of 16th July 2007, requiring
802.20 working group votes to be conducted on the basis of entity
affiliation, and to return 802.20 to normal operation under the LMSC
P&P, effective immediately."
Regards,
Tony
At 15:11 26/06/2008, Klerer, Mark wrote:
>Tony and all,
>
>Sorry for the delay in responding (but the last e-mails were send
>when it was deep night on the East Coast).
>
>The facts on balloting in 802.20 are a little bit more complicated
>and I believe a part of the confusion may stem from the difference
>in the way the sponsor ballot voting was mandated and the way voting
>was mandated for the working group. Here are the facts:
>
>1. Voting in the Working Group
>
>In the working group individuals gain membership on an individual
>basis via the normal 802 rules. Individuals must provide their
>affiliation. These affiliations may/have been verified. Based on
>that affiliation the individual becomes part of a "unit" (I am using
>his as a neutral term between "entity" and "bloc"). Each "unit"
>designates a voter and an alternate voter. Only the designated voter
>(or alternate) is entitled to vote on motions. A "unit" has a vote
>only if it has at least one individual who has earned membership
>while affiliated with that "unit".
>
>2. Voting in the Sponsor Ballot
>
>In the sponsor ballot pool individuals were assigned by the
>Oversight Committee to blocs. All individuals were entitled to vote,
>(i.e. there are no designated voters). The net vote of a bloc was
>then computed based on the approved algorithm.
>
>I hope this at least gets the facts on the table.
>
>Mark
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:21 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
>individual voting rights
>
>Since the voting on this hasn't started yet, and this is logically
>the discussion period before the vote, it would probably be a good
>idea to get the motion right before we do.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong (Mark?) but I don't believe this is a case
>of returning 8.2.20 to individual voting or changing anything to do
>with voting rights - 802.20 participants still vote individually and
>gain voting membership by the normal 802 rules. The difference is
>that as per the UC-EC decision of <<insert date here>>, those
>individual votes are tallied by the 802.20 Chair according to which
>bloc the individual is deemed to be part of.
>
>Returning 802.20 to individual voting doesn't do what we want it to
>do, because 802.20 is already doing individual voting and already has
>individual membership. It is how those individual votes are tallied
>according to blocs that is the problem we want to remove.
>
>If we pass the existing motion, it is effectively a no-op, because we
>still won't have removed the aggregation of votes into blocs. So for
>the motion to have any effect, it needs to be worded along the lines
of:
>
>"Moved to rescind the requirement, imposed on 802.20 on <<whatever
>date it was>> by the UC-EC, for individual votes to be aggregated
>according to blocs."
>
>I would suggest that the mover and seconder accept the above
>replacement text as a friendly amendment to the motion.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 00:10 26/06/2008, James Gilb wrote:
> >All
> >
> >As a reminder, the motion was:
> >-------------
> >Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at the
> >beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be
> >determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and
> >superior rules.
> >--------------
> >
> >James Gilb
> >
> >Michael Lynch wrote:
> >>Paul.
> >>I second it.
> >>Regards,
> >>Mike
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> >>To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG"
<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >>Sent: 6/25/08 13:56
> >>Subject: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
> >>individual voting rights
> >>All,
> >>Can we please get someone to second this motion?
> >>The motion will be decided by the UC-EC, so we'll need a UC-EC
> >>member to second it. As a reminder, the UC-EC consists of: voters:
> >>Gilb, Lemon, Law, Lynch, Kraemer, Hawkins, Rigsbee, Jeffree, Heile
> >>and non-voters Thompson, Nikolich.
> >>Regards,
> >>--Paul
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Thaler"
<pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
> >>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:31 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
rights
> >>
> >>>James,
> >>>
> >>>I disagree regarding this statement:
> >>>>It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting
(apparently
> >>>>mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE
SA
> >>>web
> >>>>pages) under the rules defined by the SA.
> >>>While the SA has defined rules for entity voting, it isn't clear
how to
> >>>apply them to have one Working Group with a mix of entity and
individual
> >>>voting PARs. For example, there are different membership
requirements
> >>>for a working group developing standards under the entity method
and
> >>>under the individual method. Does a Working Group with a mix of
PARs
> >>>have two voting lists - one entity and one individual? If so, which
is
> >>>used for voting on items that aren't tied to one of the PARs such
as
> >>>electing a chair or a directed position regarding another group's
PAR?
> >>>
> >>>There is also a difference in sponsor operating procedures. For
sponsors
> >>>developing individual standards, 5.1.1 of the SB-OM says they must
have
> >>>P & P and can use the model operating procedures but then it goes
on to
> >>>say: "There are also operating procedures available for Sponsors
> >>>developing a standard using the entity method of participation, and
> >>>Sponsors shall utilize these procedures as the basis for entity
> >>>standardization." So there are different (model) operating
procedures
> >>>for sponsors depending on whether they are developing under the
> >>>individual and entity method.
> >>>
> >>>Therefore, it is not clear that the rules defined by the SA cover
> >>>operation of a sponsor or a Working Group developing PARs under
both
> >>>individual and entity methods at the same time. Because the
procedures
> >>>for an entity sponsor allow sponsor voting to be by individuals, it
> >>>might be possible to merge entity and individual projects into an
single
> >>>sponsor. Merging them into a single WG presents more of a problem.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Pat
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >>>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> >>>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:52 PM
> >>>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
> >>>rights
> >>>
> >>>Wow, I am having some trouble typing here.
> >>>
> >>>In the motion passed on July 16, 2007, "shall e as" should have
been
> >>>"shall be as"
> >>>
> >>>Instead of:
> >>>
> >>>If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
voting
> >>>or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
> >>>
> >>>I meant to say:
> >>>
> >>>If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
voting
> >>>or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting, it can
decide
> >>>to do that by a vote of the Working Group, subject to approval by
the
> >>>802 EC and NesCom or RevCom, as appropriate.
> >>>
> >>>I am looking for a second and/or suggestions to help with the
wording.
> >>>
> >>>James Gilb
> >>>
> >>>James Gilb wrote:
> >>>>All
> >>>>
> >>>>Some corrections (thanks to Bob Grow).
> >>>>
> >>>>June 2006, SASB took action removing 802.20 officers
> >>>>December 2007 (not 2008) dissolving SASB oversight committee and
> >>>>returning all oversight to the EC.
> >>>>
> >>>>I verified that the UC-EC meet in San Francisco in closed session,
> >>>July
> >>>>16, 2007. The public minutes state that the following motion was
> >>>approved:
> >>>>"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20
working
> >>>>group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with
one
> >>>>vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall e as determined
by
> >>>the
> >>>>802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of their primary
> >>>>affiliation and other information available to the OC."
> >>>>
> >>>>It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting
(apparently
> >>>>mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE
SA
> >>>web
> >>>>pages) under the rules defined by the SA. This may require some
> >>>>clarifications to the 802 EC P&P and OM as well as the 802.20 P&P
and
> >>>OM.
> >>>>It was also pointed out that 802.20 did not use entity voting
process,
> >>>>it used one based on voting blocs.
> >>>>
> >>>>If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
> >>>voting
> >>>>or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
> >>>>
> >>>>The goal of the motion is to return 802.20 to its original state
and
> >>>to
> >>>>allow 802.20 members to determine the best course of action,
> >>>including,
> >>>>if they wish, to switch to entity voting.
> >>>>
> >>>>James Gilb
> >>>>
> >>>>PS: Thanks for the responses from everyone that helped me to
clarify
> >>>the
> >>>>history and status of 802.20.
> >>>>
> >>>>James Gilb wrote:
> >>>>>All
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will determine
the
> >>>>>valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Rationale:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be
> >>>based
> >>>>>on entity affiliation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>SASB returned oversight of the 802.20 WG to the UC-EC in December
> >>>2007.
> >>>>>Dec 2008 SASB minutes -- "Move to (1) disband the SASB Oversight
> >>>>>Committee, and (2) return oversight control to the 802 Executive
> >>>>>Committee with an offer of continuing support for situations
where
> >>>the
> >>>>>802 EC wishes to seek our help."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The above motion passed after reviewing the EC motion from
November
> >>>2006
> >>>>>requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard
is
> >>>>>approved by the SASB."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Motion
> >>>>>-------------
> >>>>>Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at
the
> >>>>>beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall
be
> >>>>>determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P,
and
> >>>>>superior rules.
> >>>>>--------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Furthermore, the 802.20 rules and the 802 LMSC rules do not
> >>>explicitly
> >>>>>deal with entity voting Working Groups (For example, what
constitutes
> >>>>>an entity? In 802.20 sponsor ballot, various individuals were
> >>>grouped
> >>>>>by the oversight committee into a single entity vote.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If we want to convert 802.20 to entity or mixed balloting group,
we
> >>>>>should take to the time to write the P&P to support this. In the
> >>>mean
> >>>>>time, I think it would be best to return 802.20 to where it was.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>James Gilb
> >>>>>
> >>>>>----------
> >>>>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector.
> >>>>>This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >>>>----------
> >>>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector.
> >>>>This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >>>----------
> >>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector.
> >>>This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >>>
> >>>----------
> >>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> >>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >>----------
> >>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> >>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >>----------
> >>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> >>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >
> >----------
> >This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> >reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >
> >
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.